The Racism Problem - Why DEI Must DIE

 Racism is a problem, and will continue to be a problem until we accept that there is no such thing as 'racism'.


In my series "The Art of Reasoning", in parts 9 and 10, I discussed some fundamental characteristics of human behavior, some inherent, genetically embedded survival behaviors, which are present in any social species.

Fundamental to survival is the ability to avoid or eliminate that which can harm us. How do we distinguish that which can harm us? Our inherent programming is to flock to that which is like us, and to fear that which is different.

(Note: this mechanism can be overridden. There are two key characteristics which allows us to overcome this survival response to the unknown; confidence, and curiosity. A creature that is sufficiently curious, and free of trauma from past experiences of threat may approach the unknown unafraid.)

This fear tends to lead to one of two responses to a perceived threat - flee, or fight. When alone or outnumbered, flight is the more likely response. When we have the force of a flock (or herd or pack), we may be more inclined to fight. Spend a little time observing the animal kingdom and you will see this behavior, where predator becomes prey. Buffalo, wildebeests, gazelles, elephants - all herbivores- have been known to fight off and even kill powerful prey animals, such as tigers or lions. If a lone wolf strays into the territory of another pack, the pack may respond with violence. They have even been know to slaughter a stray pup.

In 1971, a single tribe of Chimpanzees in the Gombe National Park in Tanzania split into two territorial factions. Those two factions began a brutal war with each other in 1974, which lasted four years, until one tribe was effectively decimated by the other.

All animals fight to protect resources and territories, to eliminate potential threats, to survive. It is a genetically ingrained behavior. And we humans are no different int his regard, we are subject to 'the natural man' within us. We protect that which is part of our herd against that which is not.

And the difference between 'part of the herd' and not can be very subtle. A wolf looks very much like any other wolf to us. Yet the pack can identify the outsider by his unique scent. The Gombe chimpanzees were originally all one tribe, with only four years of separation to distinguish them before they went to war.

We can form flocks based on nearly any distinguishing characteristic. Skin color, geographic origin, eye shape, spoken language, accent, age, gender, religious belief, political system. It is the same mechanism at work.

This is the problem with 'racism', 'Racism' doesn't actually exist. it is a contrived label which we have chosen to give to a very specific instance of the survival mechanism described above. The issue of "black vs white" is no different than that of 'Hutu vs Tutsi', or 'Sunni vs Shia', or 'Orange vs Green'. We create an artificial boundary, group people accordingly, expose real and contrived offenses, dredge up past sins, and go to war.

By labeling it 'racism', we have diverted attention away from the underlying mechanism at work, and instead focused on the superficial differences between two cultural groups. The unintended consequence of this is to reinforce the boundary between the two groups in question. Rather than seek to understand the similarities, we highlight the differences, which inevitably escalates the conflict.

DEI programs take this issue a step further, by introducing the idea of marginalized groups.  Any number of characteristics can be used to create still more groups, draw more battle lines, quite often erasing the very diversity they claims to be seeking in the process.

The economics of conflict further exacerbate the issue. There is so much money to be made, so much political power to be gained from playing on fears, it is far too tempting for most to pass  on the opportunity to exploit it to personal advantage.

 Anti-racism efforts, or Authoritarian imposition of diversity through DEI programs, are therefore counter-productively fostering the very thing they intend to eliminate. The first step to truly ending racism, is to stop labeling it as 'racism'. Real Diversity is achieved when it is recognized that the unit of true diversity is the individual.

Reasoning: The Solution

 In the previous posts in this series, I have detailed the rather substantial challenges we as humans face, both individually and collectively, which interfere with our ability to progress toward truth, and to live in a state of (relative) peace and prosperity.

Our very own biological, genetic nature sabotages us in this endeavor. Ironically working against its inherent purpose.

To be fair, progress in this regard is an uphill battle against a fundamental law of physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics. In simple terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that a closed system (the universe, in this case), unless acted on by an external force, will inevitably move to a state of absolute disorder. As time progresses, living things die and decay, metals corrode, stone crumbles, stars burn out, matter and energy dissipate, until all is one vast, disordered sameness.

How then, do we combat this counter-current, this inexorable march toward absolute chaos? I introduced the answer In the fifth post of this series, "The Art of Reasoning".

I refer to it as an 'art' as I don't believe there is a specific, formulaic way to apply a prescriptive set of steps and arrive at the end goal. As the antithesis of chaos, it must necessarily be adaptive in nature. It requires an active and dynamic effort on our part, both individually and collectively.

Now, that isn't to say there aren't any basic tenets to guide the endeavor. There are guidelines and guardrails, which human wisdom has known and posited since the most ancient of days. Nearly every religious and philosophical system ever devised includes among its most basic of tenets the ideas represented - perhaps most universally today - by either 'the golden rule' ('do unto others as you would have others do to you') or the 'two great commandments' ('Love God' and 'Love thy neighbor as thyself').

The law of Maat in ancient Egypt, or the law of Tzedek in ancient Isreal are two prime examples of this. The same fundamental ideals also show up in Old Norse writings, early Hindu texts, Japanese warrior tradition...  Virtually every old civilization documents a very similar set of fundamental set of guidelines, a 'code of conduct'. The same themes are consistently represented, namely:

Truth - Be honest (or at the very least, don't lie)

Courage - Don't let you fear master you.

Hospitality - Treat guests well.

Work - Be industrious in helping to build your home and your community. Take Joy in Labor.

Fidelity - Be true to friends, and family, be celibate if single, and faithful to your partner if married.

Honor and Integrity - Keep your oaths. Ensure your family name is respected, that it retains a reputation of purity, honesty, integrity and commitment.

Kindness - Speak kind words often, and look for and act on opportunities to help and serve those around you.

Reciprocity - Return kindness for kindness.

Compassion - Be quick to forgive, slow to condemn. Do not overstep your boundaries of concern.

Remorse and Accountability - Allow yourself the expression of remorse. Acknowledge your faults and and errors, take responsibility for and do all in your power to correct your mistakes, and to undo any harm you may have caused.

Wisdom - Actively seek knowledge and cultivate wisdom.

Discipline - Be modest. Practice moderation and self-sacrifice.

Justice - Protect the innocent, the weak, and the helpless. Do not seek violence, but protect those who are unable to protect themselves.



Quite honestly, most of these tenets seem obvious, so sensible, that when one reads them, it seems almost absurd that any civilization would not choose to adhere to them. This underscores just how powerful the 'natural man' is, and why it is such an active, concerted effort to exercise the art of reasoning.

It is difficult just to keep ourselves aligned with these tenets. How can one even hope to keep a society aligned? No easy task to be certain. But one which is worthy of pursuing. And just as active pursuit of the above tenets can help keep an individual on the path of Reasoning, there are also tenets which can serve as guardrails for a society.

Utopia, Dystopia, and the One Percent

 (This is a continuation of thoughts from two previous posts:

 
https://r-pentomino.blogspot.com/2024/09/infotopia-rant.html

and

https://r-pentomino.blogspot.com/2024/10/reasoning-and-revolution.html
)

I recently attended a technology convention during which there was a presentation involving a sit-down discussion between the CEO of the hosting corporation, and a world renowned international lawyer, who has enjoyed a high degree of success, and celebrity status.

Their discussion focused around their personal, interests and efforts to make the world a better, fairer, more just place. There were three key points which I found particularly enlightening.

First,  the CEO in question made it quite clear that his foremost  interests were fairness and sustainability.

And by sustainability, he means carbon. He has a broad variety of initiatives in his corporation focused around carbon sequestering and carbon reduction. I have a problem with this. As I look around carbon seems the least of our worries, Vegetation can compensate for increasing carbon levels without  too much trouble. Microplastics, in the other hand, or PFAS or pharmaceuticals in drinking water are much more concerning. The priority seems driven entirely by marketability and profitability, rather than any real risk analysis.

The second point caught my attention, was a statement made by the lawyer. She quoted a statistic given to her by her friend Melinda Gates, another celebrity philanthropist, seeking the betterment of the world. She said that "only two percent of philanthropic dollars go to help girls and women."

That is a very disturbing sounding statistic. Hard not to feel an emotional response to that. And that is the main complaint.

The statistic was presented in a weaponized fashion. It is meant to elicit a strong emotion response. A sense of anger at the injustice, the unfairness.

The statistic, as presented means absolutely nothing.

There is no context. How was that number calculated? What data sources were queried to generate the balance sheet? How is the rest divided? Does that 2% refer to dollars which go explicitly and exclusively to girls and women, or does it include a partial accounting of dollars going to all children? to food programs, drinking water, and other programs that help both men and women? If the 2% metric includes those, then where is the other ninety-eight percent going? Dogs? Cats? Endangered species? Trees? Dirt?

What is the average size of a slice from that total pie chart? If every other comparable category is getting less than two percent, then girls and women are getting the largest comparative slice by getting 'only two percent'. You as the receiver of this context-less statistic have no way of knowing what it actually means, it merely serves to manipulate you.

So then, that raises a question. Did this highly competent, admired and successful international lawyer make that claim with the intent to mislead the audience, or did she fail to consider the lack of context herself? Either scenario is troubling, demonstrating either willful dishonesty or woeful incompetence.

But the most illuminating comment was one from the CEO regarding 'fairness'. He made the statement that the world's problems can be solved by trust, that trust comes from fairness, and that fairness comes from justice and regulation.

I should note he explicitly clarified "justice and regulation" as meaning the right laws and the right punishments.

(and I will pause to disagree with this claim. Trust doesn't come from fairness, it comes from honesty and integrity. Fairness doesn't come from Justice, it comes from adherence to the oldest of laws, the great commandment, if you will  - that of Loving God [yes, there is a way this can be applied to the atheist as well as the theist, another post perhaps...], and Loving your neighbor as yourself. All other rules and regulations (and therefore loopholes, and points of coruption) should disappear as people more effectively implement these two. Society becomes more fair and equitable as laws are reduced, not multiplied.)

This philosophy seems a common view held by the politically and financially powerful. I have heard it alluded to by any others, though perhaps not quite so succinctly, or precisely. It was disturbing that a man of such an influential position would ascribe to such a philosophy. Even more disturbing that a room filled with thousands of educated individuals would applaud such a statement.

This philosophy has been the bread and butter of every oppressive, authoritarian regime since the dawn of time.  

I understand the appeal - the vision of a Utopian society in which the right set of just laws bound the behavior of its citizens, thereby providing peace and prosperity for all. Surely it must be possible for the right group of people with superior intellect and sound moral principles to create such a Utopia.

But whose moral principals? Each group or individual is convinced of the superiority of their position as "the one true way".  Each group ultimately discriminates against some beliefs, some individuals. And each group justifies it in the name of "the greater good".

Consider a simple example of a policy regarding use of company credit cards- A policy stating "use of company card for personal purposes is strictly forbidden, and doing so is grounds for termination." Nothing wrong with that, is there? The company card is regulated by tax law, so personal use creates a burden on the company, and the potential for fines, or accusations of tax fraud. So the company is protecting itself from employee misuse.

But what then of the woman, rushing in to the store to buy diapers on her way home, who accidentally grabs the wrong card from her purse? It was an honest mistake, surely not a reason to lose her job.

But rules are rules, she should have been more careful. If they make an exception for this case, then what about the next case? and the next? In a company of thousands of employees, and just a handful of people assigned to policing these cases, they don't have the resources to arbitrate each case, so....

What about age related rules, as another example? What age should someone be allowed to drink alcohol? 21, 12? Different countries set different boundaries, each based on their "scientific reasoning" Each is smugly sure of their justification, and usually condescending of contrary opinions.

What about age of consent? Just looking at the US, the age varies from sixteen to eighteen, depending on the state. But assume for a moment that everyone, globally, decides to accept sixteen. Why sixteen? If sixteen is okay, then why is fifteen years, three-hundred-sixty-four days (365 if it is a leap year) and twenty-three hours not? And if you allow an exception for sixteen minus one day, then why not sixteen minus two? minus three? minus...?

And what of the law makers? The enforcers? A degree of power must be acceded to them.  What ensures they won't abuse that position of power? In all of history, how many powerful regimes can you point to that have never once abused that power? How many have never been part of a massacre (the holocaust, Tiananmen square, Kent State University 1970,...)? Never overthrown or tampered with another country's government in pursuit of their own interests? Never created laws, then exempted themselves from those laws? What powerful organization has not performed questionable acts against their own citizens in secrecy? Or invoked the "letter of the law" while violating the spirit?

Bill Gates once condemned the government for not requiring him to pay more taxes, for placing that burden on the middle and lower classes, rather than on him. Do you know what he didn't do? He didn't lower the cost of his products. If he felt he was overpaid, and others underpaid, why did he not do that? Why did he  not cut his own salary? That was in his power to do, and would have accomplished the same end.

He is lauded for his work in vaccines, particularly around malaria. Now, I don't wish to suggest the outcome was not a good one, but It should also be noted that, in more than one interview, he stated one of his key motivations for pursuing this work was to improve quality of life, specifically in third-world countries (another positive), for the express purpose of altering (socially engineering) the reproductive behavior of women in those countries to have fewer children. His driving motivation was (is) to build Utopia, according to his vision, his perspective, with him benevolently guiding the "unwashed masses".

In the vein of vaccines, consider also, some of the policies during the Covid Pandemic. Other strategies apart from the vaccine race were proposed for dealing with the pandemic, some of which - in theory at least - might have ended the pandemic much more quickly. They were ultimately  discarded, some claim in part due to the massive lobbying dollars provided by the pharmaceutical industry. Interesting to consider, but likely unprovable. And that lack of transparency is a notable concern.

When the vaccine arrived, the world seemed to divide largely into two groups - Pro-Vax and Anti-Vax - each making their compelling case with "scientific" data, outrageous anecdotes, finger-pointing, and fear-mongering.

The truth, as it often does, fell somewhere in the middle.

There were some people who had adverse reactions to the vaccine, some chronically, or even fatally so.

There were other people who benefited dramatically from the vaccine, in some cases experiencing a reversal of chronic post-covid symptoms.

Now the rational, logical path forward would be to gather as much data as possible, from as many people as possible, to develop an accurate profile of who would likely experience benefits, and who would likely experience detriments, thereby allowing individuals to make an informed decision based on their specific circumstances.

Instead, the contemporary powers sought to implement their vision of "Utopia" either by attempting to discredit the vaccine altogether, through propaganda, or by working to implement vaccine mandates.

In either "Utopian" outcome, one subgroup suffers.

Back to the CEO and Lawyer- both are multi-millionaires, the Lawyer doubly so, due to her husband being a very successful actor. If they are so concerned about fairness, why don't they reduce their own incomes, cut costs of their products? raise salaries of their workers? hire more people to do other jobs?

Because each of these individuals is convinced of their own intellectual and moral superiority. Each is convinced they are "the one" - or at least a member of that elite group - who can lead the poor unwashed masses out of their state of ignorance and into Utopia. Each fails to recognize that their vision, their strengths, and their flaws, are no different than those of the monsters who went before them - the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Zedongs and the Nyiramasuhukos... All full  of good intention and sincerity and... madness. They fail to understand that they are not nearly so different as they believe.

To be fair, we don't see this either, as we only remember those men, and women as monsters, we don't remember that they too were once idealists, dreamers, artists, social workers, students, soldiers, victims, politicians, fathers or mothers, sons or daughters...

They, we  - both the monsters of the past and the potential monsters-to-be -, are all ultimately driven by our personal interests, ideals, desires, flaws, and foibles, and by our mis-perceptions of reality.

One individual's Utopian vision is inevitably another's Dystopian nightmare.

A year ago, after a conversation involving efforts to clear up misinformation on an unrelated, yet still relevant topic (pharmaceutical industry overreach), a recent friend made the following comment to me:

"...and I literally fear all politics and socio economics manoeuvres trying to control the people somehow, making them weak or inducing them to spend money to whatever they decide to without any thought on the people health and wellbeing
Sometimes I feel just a small piece in a big money machine the money goes always to someone else..🙄🙄"

Reading this again In light of the recent insights I acquired, it occurs to me that (and I may be getting ahead of myself in my "reasoning" work here.) at the core we are, each of us, seeking our Utopia. We are seeking a state of peace, prosperity, safety, for ourselves, our loved ones... And most of the time we are ignorant of the dystopian effects on others of our Utopian vision.  

This is the case whether you are part of the one-percent, or the ninety-nine.

What fundamentally separates the one-percent from the rest is their capacity to evangelize their particular flavor of Utopia, and their capacity to obliviously impose that "Utopia", on others, with all its dystopian consequences (which they and their sycophants refer to as 'unintended consequences' or, more heartlessly, 'collateral damage' or 'acceptable losses').

It seems a never-ending cycle- Utopian dreams to dystopian nightmares to revolts to new Utopian dreams.... round and round the wheel turns.

But, is it an inevitable cycle, or is there another path which can be taken?

Reasoning and Revolution

 

My last post was a bit of a rant. It wasn't entirely spur of the moment. It was a long time coming.

There have been a number of items in the news which have been weighing on my mind for some time.

I included a few at the end of aforementioned rant, on the topic of nefarious people using technology to stalk and harm their victims, of heinous attacks on free speech.

I included an article about the discovery that Microsoft is reading your emails:

[Microsoft is scanning the inside of password-protected zip files for malware | Ars Technica]

Not JUST reading. They are hacking your emails, looking for passwords and using them to open and read encrypted content. (They also look at your Word, Excel and PowerPoint documents, by the way, even the ones you retain locally, on your computer)

Sure, they claim this is only to stop malware and child pornography. But, how do we know? They didn't disclose what they were doing, what assurance do we have they aren't profiling for psychological manipulation via targeted ad-campaigns and misinformation? How do we know they aren't stealing the works of others? Using information gleaned for insider trading? Abuse of monopoly powers?

(I've asked various information security professionals if they have concerns, or are taking precautions. I get either, the deer in headlights look, or the foolishly confident (naive?) claim that the paid enterprise version of Microsoft services is different from the consumer version, or the shrugging "everybody else is using them so... it must be okay...")

Also, I really don't mean to single out Microsoft. Google's stack and behavior is no different.

And then you have the data brokers, the businesses who scour the internet, collecting every last scrap of information about you, and making it available to anybody who wishes to pay for it. Extortionists, Predators, Scammers, Unhinged governments... You are a commodity to be used, abused, manipulated, scammed, extorted... enslaved...


The next news item of concern to me has been AI:

To begin with, AI is worrisome because people trust the word 'Intelligence', of which there actually is none. AI is just a computer scouring large quantities of data and pulling out certain parts based on a weighting algorithm (frequency, popularity, etc...).

I don't mean to imply this isn't useful, in fact I prefixed my rant with an example of a useful function AI could serve.

But here's the problem- Pulling from my exploration of reasoning, and focusing on 'our greatest enemy', we humans are naturally greedy and lazy (that's a meaner, less nuanced way to say it than I do in the post, but also less verbose).

People gravitate toward that which is more easily and rapidly profitable. Which generally involves controlling, manipulating and exploiting other people. IT is the dark side of our unchecked, natural state.

With that lens, I look at some of the news about AI:

[CGI 'Influencers' Like Lil Miquela Are About to Flood Your Feed | WIRED]

This short youtube video also: 

[AI Influencers are taking over]

Now, lilmiquela is relatively easy to identify as 'artificial'.

But what about Milla Sophia?


It will get harder over time. These AI influencers are created using AI. An AI art program scours the ba-jillions of images on the internet, and then, using the information it has gathered regarding what characteristics do and do not appeal to the target audience, it in essence 'randomly' generates a 'person' who matches the target 'ideal' with near perfection (You just thought competing with surgically enhanced, photo-shopped supermodels was bad).

(I'm ignoring for now, the potential negative effects this could have on art as a human economic and creative endeavor. \[ i.e. Someone with no artistic talent whatsoever, using the right AI tools, could conceivably, with very little personal effort, create thousands of unique art pieces, or spam amazon and other retail sites with books, songs, etc... flooding the market, and crowding out legitimate artists who have sacrificed years perfecting their craft].)

It's more than just the physical image though. These AI 'people' have a 'backstory', affiliations with organizations. The AI algorithm (with human assistance) develops them to be someone with whom you feel a deep and personal connection, someone who you trust, someone who can influence (manipulate) your decisions.

It's bad enough that the social media feeds are inundated with stories and comments derived from half-truths, misinformation, and outright lies, generally founded on fear (I am just finally getting to some of this in parts 8 and 9 of "The Art of Reasoning"). Now individuals and organizations can feasibly crank out an army of highly influential, personal, and 'trusted' virtual voices to steer narratives and manipulate opinions, or to simply scam the most vulnerable)

(An additional, related headline I will not post, due to the graphic nature of the material, but in short, several real female influencers were victimized by an individual who used their likeness in deep-fake, pornographic films. These poor girls are dealing with the trauma and embarrassment of their families, their friends \[not to mention themselves] seeing themselves engaged in lewd behaviors, which never actually happened. It will be increasingly difficult to distinguish reality from fiction, from what someone actually said or did versus what some threat-actor invented. Further still, there are now sites where, for a few dollars, you can take images of someone and have movies created of them as victims of heinous acts of violence. Consider the impact this could have on the psyche of young men, the potential consequences, when the fantasy is no longer sufficient to feed their addiction... )

But how will anyone know for sure what is real and what is not? Of course, people are working on AI systems to detect deep-fakes and AI generated entities, which will likely be a perpetual game of cat-and-mouse. And of course the large corporate minds are calling for strict government regulation, which is unlikely to be enforceable in any meaningful way, but ultimately what that does is strengthen the technological monopolies of said corporate and government institutions, allowing them and their allies to control and manipulate the narratives. Not a desirable outcome at all. Imagine hundreds, thousands, millions of carefully crafted, personalized AI entities, designed specifically to appeal to and manipulate individuals, all controlled by a small handful of people in positions of financial or political power...


But beyond these potentialities, there seems a real madness descending on the world.


First, this one caught my attention:

[‘Sound of Freedom’: Box Office Triumph for QAnon Believers – Rolling Stone]

There is no need to invoke conspiratorial speculations that wealthy elitist pedophiles/serial-child-abusers were trying to kill the show in order to protect their evil behaviors. I have seen little in the way of sound evidence to support such a claim. It may or may not be true, but in this case, it doesn't even matter.

The more likely case (given the tone of the writing); the writers of these detracting articles don't like Jim Caviezel, because of conspiracies he has promoted in the past. Or perhaps they don't like Trump (ironically/hypocritically for conspiratorial reasons), or possibly Glenn Beck, or other high-profile figures whose names have been connected to this due to their open support for Operation Underground Railroad. Perhaps they don't like Tim Ballard because "...he's a Mormon..." (That is literally the justification more than one commentor has given for why people shouldn't see the show or support the organizations behind it, presumably for 'Christian' reasons - in response, please refer to Mark 9:38-39 and Luke 9:49-50), or ... who knows what else? There are any number of explanations, based on simple, fundamental human behaviors, which don't require any sort of highly organized, deep-state or  Hollywood elitist conspiracy.

(Though there is still that nagging question in the back of my mind - this was a low-budget, independent film, with no big industry backing, and no 'big-draw' actors. If nothing shady is going on, why then did these folks not simply ignore the film? Why did they feel the need to pile on with desperate-sounding, ad hominem attacks?)

Even more disturbing are derogatory comments from other anti-trafficking organizations who have called the film out for being 'unrealistic', or for not addressing more common avenues in which trafficking occurs (i.e. family members trafficking family members). Now, I get they would want to note these other vectors for trafficking, sure. But by siding with detractors? That seems petty, jealous and self-serving.

They could have just as easily  gotten behind the show, given their support, shown even the smallest semblance of unity regarding the fundamental issue being addressed - that slavery is STILL VERY MUCH A REAL PROBLEM TODAY, and that we need to do more to actually abolish it. I can think of few topics that should more easily cross political, cultural, social and economic boundaries than this one.

But no. Instead we were subjected to yet more division, greed, pride... Those, I would argue, are no less damning reasons than the alleged conspiracy theories.

That was, perhaps, a bit of a lengthy, rambly rant to observe that something so seemingly unifying as a film decrying human trafficking - especially child-trafficking, became a point of polarization and contention, its salient point nearly swallowed whole in the pointless conflict.

And there there is this headline:

[Young woman who survived Brussels airport terror attack 'euthanised' after struggling with PTSD - World News - Mirror Online]

It is an older headline, but one which has been weighing on me. There is an implication here that I am struggling to wrap my brain around

You see, Belgium - like many other places - has eliminated the Death penalty.

This means that we have become... what... so civilized?... that we - mercifully - do not execute the individuals who planned and executed the attack which ended the lives of over thirty people, but we will -mercifully- execute the surviving victims.

And I don't begrudge the young woman for wanting to 'check-out', after such a harrowing experience. I just find myself... at a loss. Am I the only one who feels like our priorities are a complete mess? that our culture has gone completely sideways? That our mental and social care systems are an utter disaster?

It is further 'interesting' to note that the individuals who planned and executed this attack, also planned and executed an attack in Paris a year earlier. One of the individuals had been engaged in violent criminal activities for over 15 years prior to this incident, and in fact had just been released from prison after serving four years of a ten year sentence, one year before the Paris attack. So we mercifully keep violent criminals alive, and then mercifully kill their victims. It is utterly, mind-bogglingly insane.

It is an absurd madness, fueled by those who profit from fear and division (and I don't necessarily think they do so knowingly. Many likely don't understand the implications of their actions on the grand scale, they simply are seeking to. participate in the attention economy, trying to grab influence, to garner followers, to gain sponsors, or to promote an idea which is important to them. And so, they try ideas, and repeat that which works to garner attention. And - as I have noted in my essays on reasoning. Fear works.)


This rise of chaos has lead me to think on the topic of revolution of late, for it seems we are daily on the brink of yet another one. There have certainly been a few of various sizes and relative degrees of success of late (mostly small, localized to a single city or neighborhood, and inconsequential.)

But I've been thinking a bit about revolutions of late - reading about past revolutions,the circumstances, catalyst, and outcomes.

Most don't end well for the revolters.

In 209 BC Cheng Shen and Wu Gang were ordered to march their army of commoners to assist in the defense of YuYang. They were delayed by floodwaters. The Qin laws of the time mandated execution for those who showed up late for government laws regardless of the reason. With nothing to lose, they led their soldiers in a revolt. They were no match for the emperor's trained soldiers, and ultimately their revolt failed,  and Cheng and Wu were assassinated by their own men.

The Trung Sisters, who attempted to free Vietnam from Chinese rule in 42 AD were beheaded.

The Transylvanian Peasant revolt of 1437 Lasted a year before the rebel forces were starved out or otherwise decimated.

The 1381 German Peasants revolt fared no better.

The Celts revolted on many occasions against the Romans, the last official conflict being the war of Numantine, they fought for twenty years, but in 134 BC they were ultimately overpowered and the Numantine revolters committed suicide, rather than surrender.


Not all end so badly for those who instigate them.

in AD 17 Mother Lu, a wealthy Landowner in China, whose son - a minor official - was executed by the local magistrate for a minor offense, sold her property and used her wealth to raise an army. She stormed the county seat and killed the magistrate to avenge her son's death. She died of an illness shortly thereafter, and admittedly the peasant revolt she inspired ultimately was quashed. So, okay for her, not so much  for those who followed her.

Still others fared even better.

The American Revolution for instance. The United State revolted against British rule, and created a nation which has lasted for a quarter of a millennia to date, and whose existence has had far reaching influence (some good, some bad) on the entire globe.

It is curious to me that farmers are frequently at the middle of these revolts. The Dutch farmers have recently made the news. It isn't the first time for them though. They have risen to the occasion to protest government action against agriculture before; once in 1963 and again 1989.

And while there are the few odd cases of a revolt by a military official seeking greater power, or an individual or group seeking revenge over a specific incident, most instances occur when someone or some group who perceives themselves to be oppressed reaches some breaking point. That last tax hike, that last oppressive law, that unwarranted abuse or death of just the wrong individual at just the wrong time. That one day when the bus driver threatens to arrest an individual for not moving out of the arbitrarily designated seats for people of a particular race, and that individual is just tired of playing that stupid game (Rosa Parks).

One could argue that WWII began as a revolution. The German people were subjected to severe economic hardship by the victors of WWI, to the point that enough was enough. Unfortunately, a madman ended up in charge of that 'revolt'.

Most of the time a revolution occurs when one group of a society uses their position of authority over another group in a way the other group deems oppressive. Their reasons may or may not be justified, or justifiable to them. It often starts with just one or two malcontents. It has been building over time, but today... something about today pushes them over the edge, and they fight back.

(It is interesting to note that generally both sides - the oppressor and the oppressed, when examined under the lens of reasoning, are at some level, seeking the same visionary end - Utopia. They have some grand vision of a 'perfect society' which they are seeking to achieve, or some path toward a perceived future utopia they are trying to maintain. But what all fail to comprehend is that  - since each person is unique, with unique preferences and perspectives - their vision of utopia is inevitably someone else's dystopia.)

In most instances, that is where it ends. They bluster, and are either ignored, silenced, eliminated, or in some other way subdued and made irrelevant. In some instances, that one moment of individual rebellion is the spark that ignites others, and a group revolt occurs, either spontaneously or after careful planning. In some vary rare instances, these revolts gain sufficient momentum to effect meaningful and sometimes lasting change.

Only rarely.

It becomes clear then, that one should carefully and deliberately consider their decision to revolt. The cost is usually quite high, and the probability of success abysmal. But, when you hit that breaking point, it can be hard to be deliberate.

I think the two revolts which I find most interesting are the Plebian revolts and Gandhi's revolt.

The Roman lower class plebians, through a series of five revolts against the upper class patricians won equal status. Theirs was a non-violent revolt. They simply packed up and left, and the patricians, realizing the discomfort they would inevitably face, made concessions to convince the plebians (primarily farmers) to return.

Imagine! An entire sector of society packing their bags and moving out of the city(/country) all at once. There doesn't appear - in any writings I  have read at least - to be any charismatic figure who instigated the action either. Just a collective decision. It is hard to imagine something like that ever occurring (though I suppose one might be inclined to compare it to a union strike, and perhaps it has been romanticized in my mind as something more virtuous than it really was...).

Perhaps my favorite non-violent revolutionary was Mahatma Gandhi, who managed to bully the Hindus and Muslims into peace by threatening to starve himself to death (how did that work exactly? I am pretty sure if I went on a hunger strike, I could count on my fingers and toes the people who would even take notice), and who secured India's independence from Britain through peaceful non-cooperation (though it should be noted, many of those peaceful protesters suffered horrific violence at the hands of their oppressors before victory was achieved). His determination and commitment to non-violence is absolutely inspiring.

So, what then of our future? Does yet another great revolution lie ahead for us? Will it be violent, or peaceful? Can it be avoided? Perhaps revolution is simply part of the human experience. One of the definitions of the world itself implies the turning of the wheel, coming full circle.

But with rising division, and a sort of chaos overriding human reasoning, what will the next great revolution look like? How will it end? What will be the cost?

Infotopia - A Rant

 Warning, incoming rant...


Picture this, if you will - 

 

It is 100 years after a massive, global, data-gathering and analysis system, linked to a network of sensors, cameras and geo-location systems begin tracking everything.

In the background, with  no effort on your part, they record your blood samples, urine samples,hair samples, skin cell samples, what you eat, drink, where you go, what activities you participate in, everything.

Now consider the following short story of a woman we will call Jenna:

Jenna awakens slowly, pleasantly, to the soothing sounds of ocean waves, played through the speakers in her bedroom. The room grows brighter as the LED wall simulates a beautiful sunrise. She yawns and stretches, smiling as she is bathed in the sensory simulation.

Hopping out of bed, she begins the day with her usual routine; water, toothbrush, toilet, and a light workout and invigorating cool shower.

"Good morning Jenna," the voice of her AI personal assistant greets her as she stands in front of the LED wall, now serving as a mirror as she applies the finishing touches to her outfit and makeup.

"I have observed an anomaly in your urine sample this morning. Nothing serious, but I would recommend a blood sample, if you have time."

"Okay," Jenna returns to the bathroom and places her finger against a small receptacle which has extended from the wall, a slight poke and a drop of blood is extracted.

She returns to the LED wall and reviews her schedule for the day,  instructing her assistant to reschedule her hair appointment to the day following, to make additional time for a lunch date with a dear friend who is in town for the day.

"I have completed analysis of the blood sample," the assistant reports as Jenna sits down to eat breakfast. "There appears to be a higher than normal level of adenosine, and a reduced level of bromine. Specifically in this region of the country, this combination has shown a high correlation to adrenal-cortical carcinoma in people of your age and genetic profile, at a probability of 65%."

"I have found three strategies which show a high probability of reducing this risk to less than 2%. Would you like to review them?"

"Yes, please." It always seemed a bit silly to Jenna that the assistant asked that question. Who wouldn't want to? She glanced to the small display next to the dining table, as it populated with information"
 

-
1. Reduce intake of Meats (to lower adenosine intake)
2. Increase grains (to increase bromelain intake)
3. Add a bromelain supplement for 30 days.

Recommendation to follow one ore more of the above alternatives for thirty days and re-assess.

-

"Please adjust my meal plan to accommodate recommendations one and two, and add 'get bromelain' to my todo list." Might was well try them all.

Jenna finishes breakfast, reviews and approves the newly recommended menu and sends off the grocery order, then heads out the door to her first appointment of the day.

-----

How cool would that be?!!

Can you imagine how many problems might be preventable with information that deep and broad? Analyzed and correlated for the many thousands of variables contained therein - far more than any human or group of humans could digest. Can you imagine the potential leap in quality of life?


But, we can't have that.

Why? you ask.

<begin rant>

Because anytime anybody starts collecting data, somebody finds a way to abuse it.

Creeps use gps data from fitness-gadgets and smart-watches and phones to stalk people.

Marketing agencies use all kinds of data to discover your interests, obsessions, guilty pleasures, and the most effective ways to manipulate you into buy garbage you don't really need.

Governments use any and all data to identify potential threats -  which could range anywhere from legitimate terrorist to 'political enemy', depending on who is in charge at the time. In some countries now, you can face prison time if you say the wrong things on social media. What constitutes 'wrong things'? Depends entirely on who is interpreting the law at any time.

Sleazy, money-grubbing scammers will use that data to find ways to steal your retirement funds, and your personal savings.

Political idealists/activists will use that data to dox, swat, or otherwise terrorize those they see as enemies to their cause. They will manipulate and misrepresent that data to justify unwarranted and abusive actions on the part of governments to enforce their 'utopian' vision, a the expense of those who don't share their particular views.

We can't have that because a small handful of the population value personal wealth, personal fears, personal power, or a personal vision of the future more than they value their 'neighbor'.

And so, all the decent folk (who I still believe make up the majority), wind up going into "hiding" (The dark forest), to protect ourselves from the minority of predators.

So a hearty "Thank-you" to all the Kochs,Soros,Gates,Musks, and many other well-known, lesser-known, and unknown, political and corporate 'luminaries', groups of deranged lunatics, and individual, self-serving scum-buckets (and by 'thank-you' I mean 'no-thank-you').

You're the reason we can't have nice things.

<end rant>

 

A few headlines supporting above rant:

[Microsoft is scanning the inside of password-protected zip files for malware | Ars Technica]

[Former cop abused unrevoked system access to extort women (malwarebytes.com)]

[Saudi arabia woman jailed for 11 years for online expression supporting womens-rights]

[Death penalty for hate speech?]

[German woman given harsher sentence than-rapist for defamation]

[UK warns of stalking risks from connected devices]

Some discussions on the "dark forest" concept (focused specifically on the exponential growth of this phenomenon due to  generative AI):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXkDaDDJjoA&t=21s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrcbH0ge2WE

Leaving Microsoft: Taking the Plunge

 Well, I did it.

I started out with the best of intentions to thoroughly and carefully plan, test and then install. To be fair I did do SOME planning and testing. Just not thorough.

A few weeks back, I took a Saturday, copied all my documents, pictures etc... to an external hard drive. Then I rebooted, and installed Debian version 12.

The first week was a bit problematic. The computer would occasionally freeze. I didn't get to the root cause, but I did resolve the problem.

When I installed, I did not use the default, Gnome windows environment. Instead I switched to KDE Plasma. I am more comfortable with it, as it is more similar to Microsoft Windows in look and feel. It is also more configurable, allowing me to more easily tailor it to my specific needs.

The freezing problem appeared to be related - not to KDE specifically, but to a subsystem used to translate between KDE and the video drivers.

Switching to Gnome removed that subsystem, and the problem went away. There is probably a way to fix it, but again, I'm trying to avoid digging in the guts too much.

So really. Where I have ended up is essentially the default install, which would be fairly trivial for anybody to do. I've made a few minor changes after the fact, but nothing that would be difficult for anyone to do, given instructions. I might try putting together some how-to videos to post on YouTube.

Gnome is taking a little getting used to. I have had to change the way I do a few things. I would say it is neither better nor worse, just different.

All of my critical applications (or their replacements) are working just fine, and I have even managed to move a few of them to more updated versions than what is part of the Debian 12 ecosystem by using an application ecosystem called flathub. It has worked out nicely.

So, all in all, happy with my decision to pivot and revert to Debian. What they lack in "up-to-date-ness" of applications, they make up for in ease and stability.

I did have one totally geek-out moment yesterday. A small detail I suppose, but totally made my day.

I was watching a youtube video when my cell phone rang. I was closer to my phone than the computer, so I grabbed it and answer the call, while racing to pause the video.

But I didn't haven't to. The Linux phone integration automatically paused the video for me the moment I answered the call! It was the coolest thing ever! It was technology as technology should be! Technology working for me, making my life more convenient and enabling me to be more productive and effective.

That moment alone made the switch worthwhile.

So I am now operating Microsoft free, with respect to operating system on computers.

I still need to move to a new email provider. That will be a painful process, as I need to:
1. Find a privacy respecting email provider
2. Set up the new email address
3. Change the email address on all services I use

I might not be fully Microsoft-free until next year, but I am happy with my progress thus far.

Is It a Sin To Be Efficient?

 A few weeks ago I was asked to lead a discussion in a church meeting, on the topic of the two great commandments. More specifically, It was a discussion of a Talk given by Gary E. Stevenson last April, Titled 'Bridging The Two great Commandments' (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/04/53stevenson?lang=eng).

As part of that talk, I printed out the 613 Laws of the Old Testament (Mosaic Law)  and the ten commandments to start the conversation out by noting that, for the most part, The Two Commandments were a higher-order law - that if one was following those two laws the other laws were not really necessary (is you love your neighbor as yourself, you obviously won't kill them, or steal from them...).

While reviewing the Old Testament laws, I hit upon something I hadn't noticed before. Beginning with law 41:

41.Not to reap the entire field (Lev. 19:9; Lev. 23:22)

42.To leave the unreaped corners of the field or orchard for the poor (Lev.
19:9)

43.Not to gather gleanings (the ears that have fallen to the ground while
reaping)
(Lev. 19:9)

44.To leave the gleanings for the poor (Lev. 19:9)

45.Not to gather ol'loth (the imperfect clusters) of the vineyard (Lev.
19:10)

46.To leave ol'loth (the imperfect clusters) of the vineyard for the
poor (Lev. 19:10; Deut. 24:21)

47.Not to gather the single grapes that have fallen to the ground (Lev.
19:10)

48.To leave the single grapes of the vineyard for the poor (Lev. 19:10)

49.Not to return to take a forgotten sheaf (Deut. 24:19) This applies to
all fruit trees (Deut. 24:20)

50.To leave the forgotten sheaves for the poor (Deut. 24:19-20)



Don't harvest the corners of the field. Don't pick up what you drop while harvesting. Don't go back and gather anything you forgot.
Are these laws suggesting it is a sin to be too efficient?


Now, in the context of these laws as presented, there is a clear purpose. Leave some behind so the poor can collect it. You could argue the above laws are summed up in the fifty-second law.

 

52.To give charity according to one's means (Deut. 15:11)

Give of your abundance to the needy.



But what then of the modern business culture of ultra-efficiency? of "just-in-time" manufacturing?

This all-consuming drive to eliminate every last bit of waste. Is it a sin? Does it violate this law?

If, for instance, I were a potato farmer, and I only grew precisely the number of potatoes I could sell for maximum profit, there would be nothing left for the poor. Would I be in violation of the law?

The obvious counter argument is, since I have maximized my profit through my efficiency, I would now have more money with which to help the poor.

But would I? Or would  I simply grow my business? Diversify? Invest in further efficiencies? I might even justify this, noting that further growth and efficiency will mean I will be better able to help even more poor in the future.

Meanwhile the poor in the present are starving, and perhaps some who just above the threshold are becoming poor as well.

Now, that is clearly a choice. I could just as easily, willfully ignore the original law as stated to the same end. Perhaps this is simply a straw-man argument.

What are the other effects of hyper-efficiency?

Perhaps 2020 is a good case to consider. As businesses shut down due to the pandemic, supplies of many products dwindled. Many shelves in stores were bare.

Some people were left without the ability to care for themselves. Some were left impoverished.

Natural disasters are a part of living on this big ball of dirt and rock, hurling through space. Earthquakes, floods, famine, disease...

I believe the primary function of Godly law is to facilitate greater freedom for us, by protecting us from that which would enslave us (addiction, debt...), or at the very least, protect of from that which would restrict our freedom.

Always, there are things we can't control for, things we can't predict or prevent. If you are always living at the very edge of your capacity, then if anything goes wrong, you have nothing to fall back on. You - or someone else - suffers.

When there is abundance - some waste - then when something terrible happens, the abundance can fill the gap.

So, is it therefore a sin to be efficient? Or at least, to be too efficient?